Comments supporting musicFIRST’s petition that the FCC investigat...
Comments supporting musicFIRST’s petition that the FCC investigate radio stations for allegedly refusing to play music by artists that support instituting a performance royalty confirm that the petition itself is just a headline grab, the National Association of Broadcasters…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
(NAB) said in reply comments filed this week. MusicFIRST’s supporters gave weak examples of “artist intimidation,” in their initial comments, NAB said. “The vagueness and lack of evidence … particularly the anonymous allegations and hearsay -- make it impossible for NAB and radio stations to respond specifically to musicFIRST’s accusations.” Lawyers for musicFIRST disagreed in their own reply comments. “The record thus far shows that broadcasters are not complying with their public interest obligations and are stifling debate on a matter of public importance,” attorneys Samuel Feder and Jessica Ring Amunson of Jenner & Block wrote on behalf of the group. Initial comments included some from broadcasters who “openly admitted that they are refusing to play music by artists who are” musicFIRST members and that they refused to air the group’s ads supporting the Performance Royalty Act, they said. Contrary to arguments raised by the NAB in initial comments, the FCC has authority to address broadcasters’ “abuse of their obligation to place the interests of the public ahead of their own self interest,” the Media Access Project said in reply comments. NAB had argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v Democratic National Committee precludes FCC action in this case, but MAP said it favored their view. “Having noted that broadcasters are generally afforded broad discretion in programming judgements, the Court contemplated that when this discretion is abused in contravention of the public’s right to have such access, the Commission would have to take remedial action,” it said.